RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03403
                                       INDEX CODE:  115.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX               COUNSEL: YES

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 May 2008


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be restored to the status of “Qualified for Rated Service.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  was  removed  from  flying  training  and  subsequently  met  a  Flying
Evaluation Board (FEB) prematurely.  The maximum number of  failed  sorties
allowed by the training syllabus was not met, nor  was  a  flying  progress
check administered.

In support of his application, the applicant provides copies of Air  Combat
Command (ACC) Regulation 50-31; ACC Syllabus F-15EBQ, dated  January  2002;
Certificate of Aircrew Qualification; Memorandum for Record, dated  29  May
2003;  FEB  Findings  and  Recommendations  Worksheet;  4th  Fighter   Wing
Commander (4FW/CC) memorandums, dated 22 December 2003 and 18  March  2004;
ACC Commander (COMACC) memorandum, dated  8  June  2004;  and  Aeronautical
Order 448, dated 2 August 2004.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is currently
serving on active duty with a Total Active Federal Military Service Date of
13 June 1996 and an Active Duty Service  Commitment  Date  of  12  November
2007.  His current grade is major with an effective date and a date of rank
of 1 September 2006.  The applicant’s  current  duty  title  is  Operations
Officer.

In February 2002, the applicant was enrolled in upgrade training as  an  F-
15E Weapons Systems Officer in class 02-BBE.  In July  2002,  his  training
was temporarily halted after 16 flights to  address  degrading  performance
caused by a  significant amount  of  negative  stress.   Following  medical
evaluation  and  Life-Skills  consultation,  the  applicant  was  medically
cleared for flight and resumed training in  February  2003.   On  15  April
2003, he was pulled from the program after 18 flights for failure  to  meet
course standards.  An FEB was convened 3-5 November 2003 to  determine  the
applicant’s  professional  qualifications  for  rated  service   and   make
recommendations regarding his future performance  of  flying  duties.   The
board concluded the  applicant’s  level  of  mission  preparation,  general
knowledge, and weapon system operation did not meet the  required  training
course standards.  The board recommended he be removed from  further  F-15E
training, but retain  his  aeronautical  rating,  permission  to  wear  the
aeronautical badge, and eligibility for rated service.   In  addition,  the
board stated the applicant is  not  suitable  for  flight  in  USAF  manned
aircraft, but may be considered for unmanned aerial  vehicles  (UAV).   The
4FW/CC did not concur with the recommendation for UAV consideration.  On  8
June 2004, COMACC reviewed the FEB package and disqualified  the  applicant
from aviation service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ACC/A3T recommends denial of  the  applicant’s  request.   A3T  states  the
applicant’s contention of premature removal from  flying  training  is  not
valid since his commanders are permitted to take this action at  any  point
during his training.  The FEB was also conducted in  the  proper  time  and
sequence, as its function is to investigate  the  commander’s  decision  to
halt training and recommend follow-on actions.

A3T states the relevant sections of ACC Regulation 5131, ACC Instruction 11-
464, and ACC Syllabus F-15EBQ were written to place an upper limit  on  the
number of sorties spent correcting  student  regression  before  requesting
Operations Group Commander review and approval.  However,  nothing  in  the
verbiage states that the maximum number of additional instructional sorties
(“X” sorties) must be met prior to conducting said review.   Likewise,  the
decision to convene an FEB is not linked to a minimum threshold; rather, it
is called as  part  of  the  review  process  to  impartially  examine  the
commander’s  decision  to  cease  training.   Ultimately,  COMACC  entrusts
commanders in such  situations  to  apply  their  judgment  as  experienced
aviators to determine if further training is warranted, regardless  of  the
number of busted rides.

The ACC/A3T evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Air Force advisory opinion is fatally flawed because it is  based  upon
ACC Instruction 11-464, dated 4 December 2003, which was not in  effect  at
either the time of his removal from training or at the  time  of  the  FEB.
The more important issue is the directives (ACC Syllabus F-15EBQ  and  ACCR
50-31) that were in effect, were  not  followed.   He  was  meeting  course
standards since he passed the last flight he was allowed, namely, his check-
ride.  He did not exceed the number of “X” sorties allowed  by  the  course
syllabus; therefore, he should not have been removed  from  training.   The
syllabus in effect at the time directed that a progress check-ride will  be
flown in accordance with ACCR 50-31.  He did not receive a progress  check-
ride.  COMACC places squadron and group commander in charge to  ensure  the
directive of the syllabus is followed accurately, properly, and completely.
 The syllabus is a tool that, if followed properly, will ensure students of
various abilities will be afforded the maximum  opportunities  to  complete
the program successfully.

The facts in his case clearly establish that his training was not conducted
properly, pursuant to the  training  directives  in  effect  at  the  time.
Accordingly,  those  same  facts  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  he   was
prematurely removed from  flying  training.   Although  he  did  have  some
degraded  performance  during  his  training,  he  was  clearly  performing
satisfactorily in accordance with the syllabus in effect at the time of his
removal.  Additionally, the FEB was not conducted in the  proper  time  and
sequence.

The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim  of  an
error or injustice.  The applicant has provided no persuasive evidence that
would lead us to conclude that the actions and decision  to  disenroll  him
from  flying  training  was  inappropriate,  contrary  to   the   governing
regulation and policies in effect, or not in the best interests of the  Air
Force or the individual.   Accordingly,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the  application  was
denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only  be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant  evidence  not
considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 2 May 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Clarence R. Anderegg, Member
                       Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2006-03403:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, ACC/A3T, dated 27 Feb 07.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 2 Mar 07.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 30 Mar 07, w/atchs.




                                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                                   Panel Chair